?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Simple Questions?

Jan. 31st, 2006 | 08:05 pm
posted by: johnnyissues in common_x

1 Do emotions and intelligence arise from the same source?
2 Is anything not of value?
3 Is the physical world apart from my mind’s perception?
4 There are two roads. One road leads to the imaginary, the other to reality. No matter which road I venture down I am always there. Why is that?

Link | Leave a comment {3} | Share

What is real and what is not...

Jan. 29th, 2006 | 12:47 am
posted by: remini_scent in common_x

Hello to all. Former member here with a new name, not that it makes much of a difference as I have never made my presence known. Seeing as this is a small community, I decided to make my contribution and hopefully get feedback in the process.

Insanity - deviation from the norm. Note there is no univeral standard for human thought processes, intelligence, structures of communication, etc. The only reason anything is set as a particular point of comparison is because of the majority's influence. Being the minority even in a world of complete equal opportunities will not guarantee power if not do the opposite - if intelligence and physical strength are leveled, the most popular view will overpower in the end. There is you and a room of others. You speak of strange visions and behave in an erratic pattern, the others converse of daily matters and interact smoothly; you are classified as insane. The irony lies in the automatic categorization. There has been no proof that your mind is flawed other than the judgement of say, 20 others who could very well share the same "insanity." Insanity can be non-unique. Some rape victims share similar symptoms of insanity after the traumatic experience. The key to defining the term "insanity" lies in popular opinion. For example, what differentiates a schizophrenic from society. Schizophrenia is characterized by 'delusions and hallucinations.' However, the 'delusions' exist in the mind of the schizophrenic and thus holds true to him, if not to the rest of the population. His sight, hearing, and also touch in some cases confirm his beliefs; as a matter of fact, his sensations are solid proof of his sense of reality. Let's shift the focus to you. As you gaze at your computer screen silently reading what I write, question yourself. Could you have created me in your mind, as you have never interacted with me in real life? Could you have imagined this paragraph, these thoughts poured out to you in your own head? In fact, let's go with some simpler (or so I think) questions. How does a computer work? Do you know what this machine, its inner workings are composed of? Can you put this technology you use on a daily basis together piece by piece? How can you be sitting at your home and communicating with someone thousands of miles away from you? Even if you do find the answer to these questions, keep on asking and I can guarantee eventually you will come to a dead-end where you can go no further in your mind without, ah how ironic, starting your computer, desktop, or laptop and clicking twice on the icon that says Internet Explorer (I know in fact there are other shortcuts; please do not contradict me on this irrelevant point). For further reference, could I have created you, given a nonexistent idea a name and a personality in my mind? Could I have also intricately made the computer, the keyboard, to comply with my delusion? Positively yes. Using reversed thinking, the billions of people in this world could be sharing the same "reality," or better, in your mind you could have created the illusion that the other billions of people all use computers and the message system called E-mails that allows them to unrealistically "talk" to others on the other side of the world. Let's say the first argument holds true. So many of us do indeed live in identical worlds of our own creation, then there must be either one true reality existent in another mind or none. There cannot be several different true versions of the same universe coexisting. Sane is not the grasp of what is real. How do you know what is real and that your mind is not deceiving you?

Link | Leave a comment {12} | Share

Linear, Cyclical or Semantics?

Jan. 6th, 2006 | 08:21 am
posted by: johnnyissues in common_x

Posted by another on frostcloud.com:
What would you do if it were scientifically proven that there was no afterlife? Every scientist on earth (through peer-revision) agrees, and this could be shown to be true at anytime....What would you do? How would you react? No religious quotes, or that wouldn't happen because (Insert your deity here) promises me otherwise stuff please. I just wish to know how you would react. Yes, I know negatives cannot be proven, this is just hypothetical and imaginative. I just desire simplistic answers.

ME:
i wish i could answer simply but then i'd have to recall how i used to think about this which is impossible for me to do. adversly i'd have to project myself into the future, the moment of my 'final death' and imagine what that would be.

afterlife suggests there's an 'after' but i think time to be cyclical not linear. i have no proof that it ever is linear. so the question wouldn't be for me is there an after life? rather, is there an 'after', something seperate from life itself, in which case there would be nothingness so all action in life would only affect life and not the nothingness. if then my actions 'in life' cause me heartache in life i would avoid those actions, such as pondering something of which i have no understanding of and will not further or infuse life here and now but only an imaginary nothingness.

Another:
We have no proof that its cyclical either. However, from what we have observed, from our reference point, it is linear.

ME:
really? when have you known anything outside of time (a human measurment)? i could just as easily say inches are linear and they are if you look at them that way but all size is relative to something else not nothingness. we can't measure nothingness. so where does time begin and end? it begins when i'm born? ends when i 'die'? show me one person who can prove they measured something before birth and after death and i'll show a world that doesn't exist to measurment. hence the event of life is cyclical since there's nothing ever that is non-event.

viewing time as cyclical does not necessarily mean things are repeated in the exact same way, neither does it invalidate growth/change whether it be emotional or physical. what is beyond birth and death is unknown. all things coming from the unknown, all things returning to the unknown. in that you can see the cycle as well as in all subtle layers of life.


Another:
I think that another problem with cyclical time is that in that reference there doesn't seem to be much use of chronology. We definately experience as a collective whole (meaning humanity) chronology. How does cyclical time account for this?

ME:
account for? chronolgy is yet another concept for measurment. events happen then another event arises, possibly relating to the first event. cyclical doesn't take away merit from such observations, it infuses clarity and growth in that now we see how events arise, maybe. but where did they come from if not other events? look at human history. we have grown socially, technologically, in orginization and intellect but it is because we share information. resulting from human beings before us. nevertheless we're no greater mind than the first humans. we have emotional responses just different environment. we have intellect just different environment. we're all born, we all die. but this is no new cycle of growth or decedance since both go hand in hand. we are as the romans were, just a bit more technology. the more subtle layers are the most obvious and fear that we're just repeating ourselves is doomed to repeat itself.

Another:
Interesting... perhaps there a few versions of cyclical time floating about. Please explain in clear words what you mean by cyclical time, because it appears I misunderstand.

ME:
there are two ways we as humans view everything, even concerning this notion of time. emotionally, intellectually. the trick is the balance to see the totality of it all, then appreciate it.

all things arise, have peaks then disolve. all things. that is it. it's really that simple. let me complicate it further though for those that think disolve means end. you know nothing beyond disolution except concerning this reality, to assume it does not arise again is to assume nothing will arise again. why? because nothing is seperate from what is, not even the notion of what isn't. but then that bleeds over into a whole 'nother discussion.

Another:
Consider this last post I feel that cyclical is misleading a term for your view. You don't view time as cyclical, but rather our collective experience of time. They are cycles, but one after another, intertwining with one another. In the end, the cycles are part of a large concept we call "present" and together these cycles move forward in a linear fashion. It is still linear in nature. From before it sounded as if you thought time actually receded to a past point to repeat itself again. What you have said now isn't that different from linear time at all, and so there doesn't seem to be much disagreement. Time has cycles but moves forward in a chronological fashion. We know what happened yesterday (event) and do not know what will happen tomorrow (event) and experience the infintecimal now (event). Inherent in this are these cycles you speak of (beginning, peaking, ending), and so forth, but time itself moves forward in chronology. This is how all things are experienced, no?

ME:
this seems to me a disagreement in semantics. we can all view time as it occurs, i.e. arise/peak/dissolution or beggining/middle/end. nevertheless it is my experience that the linear thought of events and how they occur never repeat again is at best an assumption. this is not to say the events are not unique unto themselves however i do not see there is a deffinite end. nothing escapes this pattern in the universe and even beyond the supposed end arises another beginning. for example memories. one may have an experience (birth), the experience is amplified in remembering it (peak) and is at some point forgotten (death). beyond that the mind does not recall the experience yet it is engraned into knowledge, such as 'fire burns'. i got burned, i felt pain, the pain left, now i need not touch fire. well beyond death that knowledge may be incidental, or i may become senile in my older years forgetting this knowledge and touch fire again. thanks to the fellow cycles occuring around me (my grandkids) and the fact that they're in the peak of their cycle watches out for me. chronology is not deffinite events but multiple cycles interacting at different points in their revolutions, in my understanding. in this it appears to be linear though it's simply a singular event from which nothing escapes. the holy trinity so to speak. arise, peak, dissolve - arise, peak, dissolve - arise, peak, dissolve - arise, peak, dissolve, unto infinito. why? cuz it aint ended yet nor deviated from that pattern.

Link | Leave a comment {4} | Share

Okee Dokee

Jan. 5th, 2006 | 04:09 pm
posted by: johnnyissues in common_x

Well, i was hoping this community might get pumping but i guess i need to do some advertising here in livejournal. i rarely come here except to share my pissing and moaning. addicted to another site at the moment, i won't say who. anyway, hope to hear your thoughts if you do decide to pop in. thanks to those who have already. bye.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

'Self' Realization?

Jan. 5th, 2006 | 07:31 am
posted by: johnnyissues in common_x

Originally Posted by another on frostcloud.com:
Thank you for this; however, I was looking for something a little more concrete - some examples, maybe. To talk of "knowing yourself" or "recognising that the sensual world is an illusion" is okay as far as it goes, but what does it actually mean in terms of behaviour? What specific things does the self-realised person do, or what specific behaviour does the self-realised person display, in comparison with the non self-realised person? Can anyone give me an example of a situation and suggest how the self-realised person might act in comparison with the non self-realised person?

Me:
well, the self realized person would recognize there is no self beyond the unity of all 'selves'. they would not be self serving and their words and actions reflect that. think of a group of three children.

child A has a toy he brings to the group. child A,B and C all love the toy and want to play with it. child A, knowing the toy belongs to him decides he gets to play with it first. child B, seeing child A is taking too long hits child A and takes the toy causing child A to cry. child C, though loving the toy and knowing it's not his to begin with waits patiently until both child A and B are fighting then steals the toy when they're not looking. The parent comes in and takes the toy away and sets up five minutes for each child to play with the toy. who is the self realized person? you decide.

Him/Her (not too sure):
My children did that - I trained them to, that's all. By nature they all had selfish inclinations. I explained why it is imporatant to share and consider others, praised when they did, scolded when they didn't and, hey presto, childrentrained to behave in a socially accpetable fashion. What has that to do with self-realisation?

Me:
well, the irony is adults do the same. the parent is no less serving the self in the sense they need/want to control the balance for their own peace of mind or for the sake of order. again, the self realized person sees there is nothing beyond the unity of all 'selves'. no one is right or wrong. each part does what it does. what does a person who needs order have without disorder? nothing to do, that's what.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

The Floodlight

Dec. 22nd, 2005 | 10:27 pm
posted by: johnnyissues in common_x

What light do you see in me that you do not see in you?
What emptiness is there but the darkness before the sun rises?
It is in us both, in us all. In every blade of grass, in every wandering being.
What is peering through my eyes is peering through yours
That unnamable, seemingly hidden truth
The truth we agreed upon long ago
It is what sustains the stars
Without you the heavens fall
Within you it all arises without a thought
It is not a philosophy, It is not an idea, It is not a dream
It is not reality
And yet it is
You can not let go of it
You can not retain it
It is the only existence that is and ever will be
What is it?
The better question would be what isn’t it?
If I told you plainly you would not believe me
Indeed if I told you at all
And still it remains, it will never be obliterated
Can you obliterate nothing?
Take from the emptiness of a bowl?
It is not the words sages and kind men have told you though it lives amidst their poetic expression.
I know you think it’s the Tao but its not, neither is it God or the human soul
These are only words subject to scrutiny and interpretation by the mind
It is not apart from words or ideas but neither is it found in words and ideas
It is found everywhere and nowhere
In dream and reality
In life and in death
The floodlight of all that is
Now……………to choose a side :) :(

Image hosted by Photobucket.com


Link | Leave a comment {2} | Share

Happiness

Dec. 22nd, 2005 | 04:21 pm
posted by: johnnyissues in common_x

Posted by another on http://www.frostcloud.com

Buddhism states that we are all constantly changing.
Buddhism states that everything is constantly changing.
Buddhism states that we cannot find happiness in things that change.

So how can we find happiness?
Must we just be happy?
___________________________________________________________________

My Response:

If you're a guy find a girl. If you're a girl find a guy. If you're a guy thats into guys find a guy. If you're a girl thats into girls find a girl. If you're a girl or guy thats into goats find a goat, but be careful cuz they'll buck you. Happiness is devoid of boredom unless of course you're into boredom, then you can be happy. Learn to laugh. When you take happiness too seriously you aint gonza bees happy. Joy is a thing unto itself, it takes no prisoners and sets no one free, it comes when it comes, it goes when it goes. If you want to be happy all the time forget it, its a myth. How do i know? Because those who claim to be happy all the time will likely be pissed off by me stating such a thing and have just broken their never ending chain of happiness.

Here's a good exercise if you wish to be happier: Tomorrow when you wake up wish every person you encounter, even people in each car you pass on the street good health and happiness in their life. Even if you bump into your sworn enemy or if someone says something distasteful or something you disagree with wish them the same, good health and happiness. Even if you don't mean it. You don't have to say it out loud, just think it in your head. Even if it becomes a compulsion you'll find yourself laughing at it and yourself. If you continue long enough you'll run into others who have that same air about them of uncompromised well wishing. Then you'll puke and say oh my god, "What have i become?!", forget about it and go back to your old ways. And that's ok too, because we all are what we are and joy is a thing unto itself.
___________________________________________________________________

What are your thoughts on the nature of joy? Can it be compelled by us? What do you strive for in your life above all, success or happiness? Likely most of us would say both but what if such a thing were not possible (hypothetically), would you choose material success and misery or happiness and poverty?

Link | Leave a comment {6} | Share

Id the Ego

Dec. 22nd, 2005 | 04:17 pm
posted by: johnnyissues in common_x

I met this guy named Id
I’m not sure what he did
He did what any id would do
He served himself and never you
He has his needs
But can not view
Cuz that’s what any id would do

What is the nature of the ego?
Does it serve any purpose at all?
Without it would you have self awarness?
What is 'self'?

Link | Leave a comment {6} | Share

The Apple

Dec. 21st, 2005 | 01:31 am
posted by: johnnyissues in common_x

If you are looking at an apple and somebody else is looking at the same apple and calls it a banana does the apple change into a banana? No, of course not. Why? I believe it's because that thing you are now looking at is neither an apple or a banana. 'Apple' is just another word or symbol that us human beings have agreed upon to call this round green thing we are now looking at. The apple remains an apple i believe in the same way god remains god or truth remains truth. No matter how we interpret ‘whatever’ it still remains. Its up to you to decide what that ‘whatever’ is or if indeed it is at all.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on why it is you think we as humans divide things into categories and sub categories. Are we defining our reality? In defining it, have we created a new reality? Also how you interpret subjective and objective realities, if you'd like. Thank you for taking the time to read even if you decide not to respond. peace.

Link | Leave a comment | Share